Over the past years, privacy and security policies, and related operations have become increasingly important. Breaches in security, leading to the unauthorized access of personal data (which may include sensitive personal data) have become more frequent among companies and other organizations of all sizes. Such personal data may include, but is not limited to, personally identifiable information (PII), which may be information that directly (or indirectly) identifies an individual or entity. Examples of PII include names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and biometric identifiers such as a person's fingerprints or picture. Other personal data may include, for example, customers' Internet browsing habits, purchase history, or even their preferences (i.e., likes and dislikes, as provided or obtained through social media). While not all personal data may be sensitive, in the wrong hands, this kind of information may have a negative impact on the individuals or entities whose sensitive personal data is collected, including identity theft and embarrassment. Not only would this breach have the potential of exposing individuals to malicious wrongdoing, the fallout from such breaches may result in damage to reputation, potential liability, and costly remedial action for the organizations that collected the information and that were under an obligation to maintain its confidentiality and security. These breaches may result in not only financial loss, but loss of credibility, confidence, and trust from individuals, stakeholders, and the public.
Many organizations that obtain, use, and transfer personal data, including sensitive personal data, have begun to address these privacy and security issues. To manage personal data, many companies have attempted to implement operational policies and processes that comply with legal requirements, such as Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) or the U.S.'s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) protecting a patient's medical information. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can fine companies up to 4% of their global worldwide turnover (revenue) for not complying with its regulations (companies must comply by March 2018). These operational policies and processes also strive to comply with industry best practices (e.g., the Digital Advertising Alliance's Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising). Many regulators recommend conducting privacy impact assessments, or data protection risk assessments along with data inventory mapping. For example, the GDPR requires data protection impact assessments. Additionally, the United Kingdom ICO's office provides guidance around privacy impact assessments. The OPC in Canada recommends personal information inventory, and the Singapore PDPA specifically mentions personal data inventory mapping.
Thus, developing operational policies and processes may reassure not only regulators, but also an organization's customers, vendors, and other business partners.
For many companies handling personal data, privacy audits, whether done according to AICPA Generally Accepted Privacy Principles, or ISACA's IT Standards, Guidelines, and Tools and Techniques for Audit Assurance and Control Professionals, are not just a best practice, they are a requirement (for example, Facebook and Google will be required to perform ten privacy audits each until 2032 to ensure that their treatment of personal data comports with the expectations of the Federal Trade Commission). When the time comes to perform a privacy audit, be it a compliance audit or adequacy audit, the lack of transparency or clarity into where personal data comes from, where is it stored, who is using it, where it has been transferred, and for what purpose is it being used, may bog down any privacy audit process. Even worse, after a breach occurs and is discovered, many organizations are unable to even identify a clear-cut organizational owner responsible for the breach recovery, or provide sufficient evidence that privacy policies and regulations were complied with.
Additionally, third-party vendors that provide software applications and systems that handle or access the personal data of others may provide such software to large numbers of different customers (e.g., hundreds or thousands of different customers). This adds an additional level of complexity because when a customer of the vendor is performing a privacy audit, the privacy audit may involve evaluating the vendor's compliance with one or more of the company's specific privacy policies, which may, for example, have been derived from one or more assessment standards. As part of this evaluation process, the customer may direct numerous questions to the vendor that only the vendor is in a position to answer, either initially, or periodically. If the vendor has, for example, thousands of customers, the result is that the vendor may be pressed to field questions from each of its customers every time that the customer evaluates the vendor for compliance. This can lead to a situation in which both the vendor and its customers experience delays. This may also be the case in situations where a vendor handles personal data when providing services, or products other than software.
In light of the above, there is currently a need for improved systems and methods for monitoring compliance with corporate privacy policies and applicable privacy laws.